Orange County, CA school district apologizes for making 7th graders sing Islamic 'fight song'

a reply to: MagesticEsoteric

I'd agree with you. The government has no business teaching religion, ethics, morals or right from wrong. It needs to stay in its "Constitutional" lane and work with its "enumerated" authority.

a reply to: MagesticEsoteric

No no no, your certainly not stupid...

In fact your ability to admit being wrong puts you WAY ahead of the average bear.

Don't be so hard on your self, we've all been lied to in a massive way.

I only learned the truth about this just last year myself.

a reply to: murphy22

U2U should be in your inbox.

originally posted by: Murgatroid
a reply to: MagesticEsoteric

No no no, your certainly not stupid...

In fact your ability to admit being wrong puts you WAY ahead of the average bear.

Don't be so hard on your self, we've all been lied to in a massive way.

I only learned the truth about this just last year myself.

I really appreciate you saying that.

It sucks eating crow but, when you are wrong, you are wrong....no way of escaping the truth.

I could have deflected to another issue so that I didn't look ignorant and the argument just went on and on or,

Own up to the fact that I just didn't know everything that I thought I knew as fact.

I joined ATS to learn beyond my scope of understanding...not to have a battle of wits. LOL

I'm glad we crossed paths this evening...You and murphy22.

Thank you both.

a reply to: MagesticEsoteric

You are not exactly wrong, it is right that it is never said in those words, but plenty of info out there that they didn't want a religion established by the state. Which is where people get that statement from.
That IS said plain as day.
Good article about it.
www.theatlantic.com...
www.constitution.org...

Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802 to answer a letter from them, asking why he would not proclaim national days of fasting and thanksiving, as had been done by Washington and Adams before him. The letter contains the phrase "wall of separation between church and state," which lead to the short-hand for the Establishment Clause that we use today: "Separation of church and state."

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.

So it is really a semantics game when people want to claim that there is no support of our constitution for the separation.
It is there, just like you said.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: MagesticEsoteric

You are not exactly wrong, it is right that it is never said in those words, but plenty of info out there that they didn't want a religion established by the state. Which is where people get that statement from.
That IS said plain as day.
Good article about it.
www.theatlantic.com...
www.constitution.org...

Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802 to answer a letter from them, asking why he would not proclaim national days of fasting and thanksiving, as had been done by Washington and Adams before him. The letter contains the phrase "wall of separation between church and state," which lead to the short-hand for the Establishment Clause that we use today: "Separation of church and state."

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.

So it is really a semantics game when people want to claim that there is no support of our constitution for the separation.
It is there, just like you said.

Much appreciated!


I just wish it was more cut and dry....fact vs. semantics/speculation/interpretation.

I am still in awe that I never looked into this more on my own. I never really had a reason though until today.

Still isn't right to teach religion in public schools though. That much I will not budge on....ever.

a reply to: MagesticEsoteric

If they teach them all and very very brief history of them and nothing about the beliefs or what not I am some what ok with it. What this teacher did is a serious no though.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: MagesticEsoteric

If they teach them all and very very brief history of them and nothing about the beliefs or what not I am some what ok with it. What this teacher did is a serious no though.

I promise...no judgement from me ever!

But, are ya drunk or something?

I drunk post from time to time too. I'm just as guilty.

I just can't understand what you are trying to say.

"They might only have one God, but they can make an explosion"
So who wants report the teacher to all the alphabet agencies for threatening to bomb things in the name of Allah? If kids can get expelled for eating poptarts into shapes that somehow resemble guns, surely this teacher earned herself a trip to Guantanamo, huh?

a reply to: FlySolo

I'll admit it was stupid, but are our children so weak that they could be influenced and brainwashed over a stupid song?

What ever you do, don't play, "Cop Killer" or we're all doomed!

a reply to: MagesticEsoteric

Really? That's how it easy it was? Here's the text:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

It doesn't use the words "separation of church and state" and what does that fact prove? Nothing. That's just present day fundies playing semantics games. The intent is clear. It was certainly clear to Thomas Jefferson in 1802 despite the claims made in one of the above sources:

"By now, most conservatives are aware that the words "separation of church and state" appear no where in the U.S. Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, or the Federalist Papers. They are not the law; neither are they part of the legislative history of the law. The doctrine or separation of church and state is a fabrication of blatantly liberal, anti-Christian, dishonest, activist judges. In fact, the words,"separation of church and state" are only words taken out of context from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson. They exist nowhere in the laws of our nation."

Not at all out of context. You can read the entire letter here but here's the relevant part:

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties."

Keep in mind that this is the man that wrote the Declaration of Independence (with editorial contributions from Ben Franklin, a deist). How about another FF's interpretation of the intent?

"I am persuaded, you will permit me to observe that the path of true piety is so plain as to require but little political direction. To this consideration we ought to ascribe the absence of any regulation, respecting religion, from the Magna-Charta of our country" -- George Washington, 1789, in a letter to the Presbyterian Ministers of Massachusetts and New Hampshire

"The legislature of the United States shall pass no law on the subject of religion nor touching or abridging the liberty of the press." -- Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, Resolution offered in the Philadelphia Convention, May 29, 1787

"Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion and Government in the Constitution of the United States, the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history." -- James Madison, Monopolies, Perpetuities, Corporations, Ecclesiastical Endowments more info here

I could fill several posts with quotes in support of the concept of separation of church and state from just Jefferson and Madison but I really don't feel the urge to have one of these stupid back and forth pasting wars with historical revisionists of the Christian Right and we're way off topic now.

I would encourage you to research the topic outside of sources that are completely given over to right-wing Christian bias.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Easy now....go back through the thread and read what i realized and accepted as truth.

I have no beef with you or anyone else in this thread.

Seriously, take the time an scroll back through the thread.

You will find that I accepted my ignorance and moved on....I actually learned something that I didn't know prior to today.

I accepted it and absorbed it as truth instead of arguing and debating relentlessly.

I'm not your enemy...lol!

a reply to: murphy22

Do people actually thoroughly read the replies to posts on this site?

ETA: not a personal jab at you..just an observation in general.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Did you read the lyrics? There's no place for that and yes, kids are impressionable.

Looks like we need a separation of mosque and state.

a reply to: FlySolo

Sorry. I just don't see it. Some parents freak if there's a Harry Potter book in the library. Other parents freak over a bible passage uttered by a teacher. Yeah, I saw the lyrics. I actually rad them and guess what!

I didn't convert to Islam.

So I don't see the issue. I think people are just too sensitive.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: FlySolo

Sorry. I just don't see it. Some parents freak if there's a Harry Potter book in the library. Other parents freak over a bible passage uttered by a teacher. Yeah, I saw the lyrics. I actually rad them and guess what!

I didn't convert to Islam.

So I don't see the issue. I think people are just too sensitive.

Quick ?

Do you have any children?

Just to be clear...this question is for DCcowboy

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: FlySolo

Sorry. I just don't see it. Some parents freak if there's a Harry Potter book in the library. Other parents freak over a bible passage uttered by a teacher. Yeah, I saw the lyrics. I actually rad them and guess what!

I didn't convert to Islam.

So I don't see the issue. I think people are just too sensitive.

You missed the point. The only thing those lyrics are missing is an Allah Akbar war cry. It's "explosive"
Children, I can understand having all this stuff go over their heads. What's your excuse?

originally posted by: FlySolo

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: FlySolo

Sorry. I just don't see it. Some parents freak if there's a Harry Potter book in the library. Other parents freak over a bible passage uttered by a teacher. Yeah, I saw the lyrics. I actually rad them and guess what!

I didn't convert to Islam.

So I don't see the issue. I think people are just too sensitive.

You missed the point. The only thing those lyrics are missing is an Allah Akbar war cry. It's "explosive"
Children, I can understand having all this stuff go over their heads. What's your excuse?

I'm still curious to know if the cowboy has children?

It's very relevent IMO.